Teachers, administrators disagree on plan

NORWALK -- Central office and building administrators are working to revamp the building administrator evaluation process, many agreeing that the plan needs to be tweaked.

Teachers and administrators disagree about what needs to change, though.

Norwalk Federation of Teachers President Bruce Mellion said the difference between the evaluation process for teachers and the one for administrators isn't right, because teachers are subjected to a more rigorous evaluation.

"It does not hold administrators accountable the way that teachers are being held accountable," he said.

But Superintendent Sal Corda and Norwalk Association of School Administrators President Tony Ditrio said that's not the case.

Differences are necessary between the two by virtue of the contrast in the jobs, they said.

"I know the teachers feel that their plan is very thorough and look and maybe think ... we're getting off easier," Ditrio, principal of Kendall Elementary, said. "I wouldn't characterize the plan that we're under as soft or easy."

The administrator plan was implemented last school year.

It assesses six standards with sub-components: The vision of learning; the culture of teaching and learning; the management of learning; relationships with the broader community to foster learning; integrity; fairness and ethics in learning, and the political, social, economic, legal and cultural context of learning.

Evaluatees are ranked either unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, or distinguished in each, based on standard rubrics and definitions.

"In putting it into effect we found that it did need to be changed," Ditrio, a member of the committee that writes the plan, said. "I think we all agree that we need to make it better. Not because it's too weak, it's just too cumbersome."

The teacher evaluation plan is now in its third year of use, Mellion said, adding that a committee that includes teachers and administrators has revised it three times.

Educators are assessed in four different domains: Planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities. They are ranked in the same four categories as administrators, but with separate definitions for what each means.

Teacher representatives and administrators interviewed by The Hour agreed that the teacher evaluation is a good tool, but some believe it can be abused by administrators.

The rumors last month surrounding the controversial retirement of Russell McCallum, a popular first-year kindergarten teacher at Rowayton Elementary School whom some parents said was forced out by an unfair evaluation and negative treatment from administration (a claim building administrators denied), rang all-too-true for former art teacher Barbara Newman Macdonald.

"It's horrible, some of the things they do to teachers," she said in a telephone interview earlier this month. "Half of them wouldn't even be there if they knew what goes on."

Macdonald, a 1964 Brien McMahon High School graduate, said she taught art in 13 schools at every level during her 35-year tenure with the district, retired about two years ago and still has many friends who teach in the system.

"I saw it all. I worked with a lot of principals. Some of them were really fair. They couldn't do enough to help you. And then there were the others."

Macdonald said many building administrators don't have expertise in the subject a teacher covers but still assess a teacher's mastery and communication of subject material.

Once, she said, an elementary school administrator criticized her for referencing an European artist in class because elementary kids were only supposed to learn about American artists.

"Stupid things like that, they can really erode your morale really quick. I mean, get a life."

The way to fix that, Macdonald said, is to add more district supervisors, one for each subject.

The problem is primarily in the elementary schools, where personality conflicts or disagreements over resources sometimes cause principals or assistant principals to lash out against teachers they don't like, she said.

"You're at the mercy of the administrator who's evaluating you as a teacher. There's an undercurrent of animosity. They have ways of getting you. It's hard enough teaching as it is, without all of that stress. You're a professional. You don't expect to have to ask permission for every word you say and every thing you do. If you let them step on you then you probably don't have any problems, if you're a decent teacher. You're okay unless you rock the boat."

Mellion said he's heard many complaints like Macdonald's, and the biggest problem with administrators is the "affective domain."

"We think that there's a major void ... in the administrator evaluation document. It's how you converse, how you dialogue, your courtesies and so forth. So much of what we do is based on words and how we express them and how we communicate. That has been a very sore spot."

Mellion said the district needs more central office staff, in order to ensure that teachers are treated respectfully and that administrators face the same drop-in visits and observation that teachers undergo.

"The teachers are put under a lot of scrutiny," he said. "We don't have a problem with that. We just think fair is fair. What's good for the teachers should be ... equally as good for the administrators."

Ditrio said a tool that tries to assess every type of interaction between principals, assistant principals and teachers is not reasonable or productive, alleging that simple conflict management and mediation, involving union representation if need-be, go a long way when it comes to troubles between teachers and administrators.

"Bruce wants to have an instrument that's going to tell people to be nice. Why do you have to wait until the end of the year, 'til somebody writes an evaluation? Deal with it. It shouldn't be dealt with in the evaluation plan."

Because the two central office directors can't be in every school each day observing principals' performance the way principals can observe teachers, the evaluation process has to look different, Ditrio said.

"I think the problem with the plan is we tried to copy the teacher plan as best we could," he said.

Evaluation by an off-site central office administrator won't change the way principals behave, he said, adding that there will always be a few dissatisfied teachers but central office directors should take notice if an administrator is the brunt of a significant number of employee complaints.

Ditrio said in nearly 37 years with the district, he can't remember an administrator being removed because of an evaluation.

There is more research available to develop teacher evaluations than those for administrators, he said, but the committee is now considering several plans for the latter from other districts that have seemingly worked well.

Ditrio wants to see a plan developed that assesses things that can be measured and that "neither side is afraid of," because employees who are afraid to try new things for fear of penalty or job-loss rarely grow.

"I look at these other plans and I see them as being fair and a lot more progressive. The whole idea of this is to get people to be better at what they do. You have to have a plan that promotes growth, that lets you make risks. I want them to look at the fact that I took a chance, I made the effort."

Corda said the directors of elementary and secondary education are "in the buildings often," certainly enough to assess situations and be available to people.

The appropriate venue for teacher complaints is either private discussion between individuals or meetings between union representative and administrator, he said.

"If there are concerns that teachers have, I think there is a way of expressing those concerns in the monthly consultations that take place."